JAMES R. SULLIMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that failure to provide timely notice of an order's entry, which causes the appeal period to expire before notice is received, requires dismissal of the appeal as a jurisdictional matter.
Appellant alleged the final order was not mailed to him or his attorney until after the appeal period had effectively expired. A hearing officer found…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdictional Time Limits For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, James R. Sulliman, filed his appeal in this court on February 13, 1984, and in the lower tribunal on March 12, 1984, to review an order dated November 11, 1983.
In his notice of administrative appeal, appellant alleged that the final order of the Florida Board of Psychological Examiners rendered on November 11, 1983, was not mailed to the petitioner/appellant or his attorney of record, as required by Section 120.59(4), Florida Statutes, until February 8, 1984, by certified mail. Based on this allegation, the cause was relinquished by this court to the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, for a factual finding and determination of this issue. The hearing officer found that petitioner/appellant’s attorney of record did not receive a copy of the final order until February 10, 1984, and was not notified of the entry of that order until shortly before that date.
The issue thus presented is whether the failure of the agency to furnish timely notice of entry of the order, so that the time period for appeal has expired when the affected party receives such notice, precludes review of the action below. We are constrained to hold that, the matter being jurisdictional, the appeal must be dismissed. Cash v. Smith, 465 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Upjohn Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 471 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In accordance with the Cash and Upjohn decisions, we certify the following question to be one of great public importance:
MAY THE APPELLATE JURISDICTIONAL TIME RESTRICTIONS BE EXTENDED BY STATE ACTION DEPRIVING A PARTY OF NOTICE OF THE ENTRY OF AN APPEALABLE ORDER?
BOOTH, C.J., SHIVERS, J., and TILLMAN PEARSON (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Jacksonville v. ST. Johns Bluff Util. Co., Inc., 480 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…E ACTION DEPRIVING A PARTY OF NOTICE OF THE ENTRY OF AN APPEALABLE ORDER? See Cash v. Smith, 465 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Upjohn Healthcare v. Dept. H.R.S., 471 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sulliman v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 474 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), in which the identical question was certified. [*131] Appellant alleges that it was not notified that either the recommended order or the final order had been rendered until well after the time for appeal had expired, contrary t…
Authorities Cited
- Cash v. Sharyn L. Smith, 465 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Upjohn Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 471 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)